MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1997643846 · doi:10.2747/0020-6814.47.6.591

Do Supercontinents Turn Inside-in or Inside-out?

2005· article· en· W1997643846 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Brendan Murphy, R. Damian Nance

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Geology Review · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
Mots-clésSupercontinentGeologyLithosphereSubductionBreakupArcheanPaleontologyMantle (geology)RodiniaPlate tectonicsTerraneGeophysicsEarth scienceTectonicsCraton

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Supercontinent amalgamation and dispersal has occurred repeatedly since the Archean. However, the mechanisms responsible for these events are unclear. Following supercontinent breakup, two geodynamically distinct oceans may be distinguished: an interior ocean formed between the dispersing continents, whose lithosphere is younger than the time of supercontinent breakup (TR); and an exterior ocean that surrounded the supercontinent prior to breakup, and consequently is dominated by lithosphere that is older than the time of breakup. In order to evaluate geodynamic models for supercontinent formation, it is essential to determine which of these two types of ocean is consumed during supercontinent amalgamation. Although much of the evidence needed is destroyed by subduction, vestiges of oceanic lithosphere are preserved in mafic complexes accreted to continental margins prior to terminal collision. Because the age contrast between interior and exterior oceans diminishes as the continents drift apart, the ages of the earliest accreted complexes are the most diagnostic of the ocean in which they formed. Constraints on the age of the mantle lithospheric sources (TDM) that give rise to these accreted complexes can be derived from Sm-Nd isotope systematics. In the case of Pangea, for example, the North American Cordillera represents an accretionary orogen along the leading edge of a dispersing supercontinent. Within this orogen, the oldest accreted oceanic terranes, characterized by high εNd values close to contemporary depleted mantle values, show similar crystallization and TDM model ages that imply crustal formation and arc activity during the lifespan of Pangea, that is, within the exterior Panthalassa ocean (i.e., TDM>TR). This example suggests that a similar approach applied to older orogens may constrain the relationship between continental margins and their accreted mafic complexes. Pangea was formed by closure of Paleozoic oceans (e.g., Iapetus and Rheic) that were formed after the ca. 550 Ma breakup of Pannotia. Uncontaminated mafic rocks from both oceans that have εNd values close to depleted mantle values at their respective times of emplacement show closely matching crystallization and depleted mantle model ages that do not exceed the age of rifting (i.e., TDM ≥ TR). This indicates that the oceanic lithospheric source of these suites was generated after the rifting of Pannotia, such that Pangea was formed by the closure of interior oceans (introversion). In contrast, mafic terranes accreted in orogens that terminated in the formation of the Late Neoproterozoic supercontinent Pannotia have Sm-Nd TDM model ages between ca. 1.2 and 0.71 Ga, implying that much of the oceanic lithosphere that was subducted and recycled to yield these complexes was formed before the ca. 755 Ma breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia (i.e. TDM > TR). These mafic complexes are therefore vestiges of oceanic lithosphere that formed within the peri-Rodinian ocean, such that Pannotia was formed by the closure of an exterior ocean (extroversion). This analysis suggests that Pangea and Pannotia were assembled by fundamentally distinct geodynamic processes. Hence, the "supercontinent cycle" may have a more complex origin than previously considered.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,395
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0990,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,274
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations65
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Geology ReviewMême sujetGeological and Geochemical AnalysisTravaux en français237 207